Dear Mr Tan KL,
Here are the comments posted by Ming Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:25 am on Channel News Asia -forum- Market Talk
'Finally, the CAD is involved. The MAS only has powers over civil matters. Crimes such as financial fraud would have to be referred to the CAD as they are the ones who are empowered to act on the criminal provisions of the relevant statutes.
Tan Kin Lian has been quite selfless and I would urge any stragglers left to contact him about joining up and forming a group, but petitions are probably insufficient if you wish to motivate an investigation into the matter.
Evidence is needed to demonstrate, even if only on a prima facie level, that the financial institutions have misrepresented their products. To do so, the oral testimony of the various affected parties must be collected. If a large number of people say that DBS for instance represented their offerings as essentially risk free or had the equivalence to capital protected products, then that becomes evidence which cannot simply be brushed aside.
To make the case even stronger, the testimony of former relationship managers could be added. DBS is known to have a high staff turnover and it may be possible to find former employees who are willing to step out and speak the truth. If the protocol had been to say whatever was necessary to close the sale, then the so called ‘ironclad’ contracts can be called into question.
Do not just sit back and hope that someone will help you. More than ever, you need to be active citizens who are willing to stand up for your rights, and in protecting your interests, fulfill your duty as citizens of our republic. Everyone needs to take the initiative, find the courage and be a leader.'
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=180122&start=80
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Unhappy with bank's complaint handling process
Dear Mr Tan
In my experience so far the "investigation" by the bank into mis-selling is unsatisfactory. In fact what happened was that as soon as I raised a point, there was a rebuttal from the bank's view by the Investor Care person.
From MAS's assurances the FI's "independent" arm is meant to be fair and impartial.
What I encountered was defensive and biased. In my case I had a written statement to give them. Should we not also get in writing how they will proceed and what the timeline is?
Are they wearing us down? Is this a tactic to ensure attrition? In fact it makes me even more determined to fight on! We have all lost enormous amounts of money and don't need this badgering. If they wanted to ask us questions they should do so in a less confrontational manner. Their approach is also biased because the person who interviewed me defended the RM!
REPLY
I suggest that you complain to the person who was appointed by MAS to oversea the bank's complaint handling process.
In my experience so far the "investigation" by the bank into mis-selling is unsatisfactory. In fact what happened was that as soon as I raised a point, there was a rebuttal from the bank's view by the Investor Care person.
From MAS's assurances the FI's "independent" arm is meant to be fair and impartial.
What I encountered was defensive and biased. In my case I had a written statement to give them. Should we not also get in writing how they will proceed and what the timeline is?
Are they wearing us down? Is this a tactic to ensure attrition? In fact it makes me even more determined to fight on! We have all lost enormous amounts of money and don't need this badgering. If they wanted to ask us questions they should do so in a less confrontational manner. Their approach is also biased because the person who interviewed me defended the RM!
REPLY
I suggest that you complain to the person who was appointed by MAS to oversea the bank's complaint handling process.
Financial institution fined for mis-selling
Dear Mr Tan KL,
Regulator fines A&L record £7m for mis-selling loan insurance
Miles Brignall
The Guardian, Wednesday October 8 2008
Alliance & Leicester has been hit with a record £7m fine by the financial regulator after it was caught training staff to pressure loan customers to take out expensive payment protection insurance (PPI).
The Financial Services Authority said yesterday that it had found evidence that A&L's call-centre staff had failed to give customers details of the cost of PPI, and that the bank had tried to sell the product "without properly considering its customers' needs".
Between January 2005 and December 2007, A&L sold about 210,000 PPI policies to its personal loan customers, with the average policy costing £1,265 - turning over an extra £265m.
The City watchdog said yesterday the bank had failed to make it clear that the cover was optional, and had even trained staff to put pressure on personal loans customers when they asked why PPI was included in quotes for repayments.
PPI insurance, which is sold to those taking out credit cards, loans and mortgages, is designed to cover repayments if the policyholder is made redundant or is unable to work.
However, it has been criticised for being expensive and unsuitable for many of those who are sold policies as it rarely pays out in the event of a claim. It is also hugely profitable for the banks.
Margaret Cole, director of enforcement at the FSA, said: "The failings at A&L are the most serious we have found ... Customers should be able to rely on impartial advice based on their individual needs and demands.
"It is particularly unacceptable for a firm to train its advisers to put pressure on customers when recommending insurance cover which they have not asked for and may not need."
The FSA said the company qualified for a 30% reduction in the penalty by settling at an early stage of the FSA's investigation. Were it not for this discount, the FSA said the penalty would have been £10m.
However, Sara-Ann Burgess, who as director at PPI specialist Burgesses has campaigned against poor performing policies, said A&L would still end up making a significant profit out of the non-compliant business. "The regulator has said A&L sold approximately 211,000 policies - that equates to £265m in premiums. The £7m fine may be a record, but this sorry affair shows just how much some of the high-street banks have made out of PPI."
David Bennett, A&L's chief executive, said: "I apologise sincerely for our shortcomings. We will be writing to every customer concerned and will be working with independent accountants and the FSA to ensure we put right any disadvantage."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/08/allianceleicester.banking
Regulator fines A&L record £7m for mis-selling loan insurance
Miles Brignall
The Guardian, Wednesday October 8 2008
Alliance & Leicester has been hit with a record £7m fine by the financial regulator after it was caught training staff to pressure loan customers to take out expensive payment protection insurance (PPI).
The Financial Services Authority said yesterday that it had found evidence that A&L's call-centre staff had failed to give customers details of the cost of PPI, and that the bank had tried to sell the product "without properly considering its customers' needs".
Between January 2005 and December 2007, A&L sold about 210,000 PPI policies to its personal loan customers, with the average policy costing £1,265 - turning over an extra £265m.
The City watchdog said yesterday the bank had failed to make it clear that the cover was optional, and had even trained staff to put pressure on personal loans customers when they asked why PPI was included in quotes for repayments.
PPI insurance, which is sold to those taking out credit cards, loans and mortgages, is designed to cover repayments if the policyholder is made redundant or is unable to work.
However, it has been criticised for being expensive and unsuitable for many of those who are sold policies as it rarely pays out in the event of a claim. It is also hugely profitable for the banks.
Margaret Cole, director of enforcement at the FSA, said: "The failings at A&L are the most serious we have found ... Customers should be able to rely on impartial advice based on their individual needs and demands.
"It is particularly unacceptable for a firm to train its advisers to put pressure on customers when recommending insurance cover which they have not asked for and may not need."
The FSA said the company qualified for a 30% reduction in the penalty by settling at an early stage of the FSA's investigation. Were it not for this discount, the FSA said the penalty would have been £10m.
However, Sara-Ann Burgess, who as director at PPI specialist Burgesses has campaigned against poor performing policies, said A&L would still end up making a significant profit out of the non-compliant business. "The regulator has said A&L sold approximately 211,000 policies - that equates to £265m in premiums. The £7m fine may be a record, but this sorry affair shows just how much some of the high-street banks have made out of PPI."
David Bennett, A&L's chief executive, said: "I apologise sincerely for our shortcomings. We will be writing to every customer concerned and will be working with independent accountants and the FSA to ensure we put right any disadvantage."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/08/allianceleicester.banking
Oversight of the complaint handling process
Dear Mr. Tan,
Can you ask MAS the following?
Do the three "well-regarded individuals" MAS has identified have sufficient resources especially manpower to do what MAS requires them to do
"review the internal complaints handling and resolution processes of the financial institutions (FIs) concerned to determine whether these processes are independent, fair and transparent. While these independent parties will not be involved in handling individual customer complaints, they will update MAS regularly on the progress of the complaints review.": and
" as part of the terms of reference of their appointment, the independent parties will highlight to MAS any shortcoming in the FIs’ processes as well as any issues that require regulatory follow up."?
If not, do they have to rely on the FIs they are overseeing to provide them manpower and other resources to ? If so defeats their independence and credibility.
Can you ask MAS the following?
Do the three "well-regarded individuals" MAS has identified have sufficient resources especially manpower to do what MAS requires them to do
"review the internal complaints handling and resolution processes of the financial institutions (FIs) concerned to determine whether these processes are independent, fair and transparent. While these independent parties will not be involved in handling individual customer complaints, they will update MAS regularly on the progress of the complaints review.": and
" as part of the terms of reference of their appointment, the independent parties will highlight to MAS any shortcoming in the FIs’ processes as well as any issues that require regulatory follow up."?
If not, do they have to rely on the FIs they are overseeing to provide them manpower and other resources to ? If so defeats their independence and credibility.
Misleading advertisements
Dear Mr Tan
I bought Minibond Series 5 & 6 through one of the local Financial Institutions with the understanding (from the sales brochure and newspaper advertisements) that the bond is issued by six leading banks namely, DBS, Citibank, Merrill lynch. Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and Standard Chartered bank. The bond pays 5.1% interest per year for a 5-year tenure.
I understand that the principal amount is not guaranteed but the risk is very low, as the six leading banks are very strong and sound. And if one of the banks go bankrupt, the maximum loss will only 1/6 (16.7%) of the principal amount. I will suffer a substantial loss of my principal amount only when all the six leading banks go bankrupt.
Comparing with the OCBC 4.2% and 4.5% preference shares available from the stock market, which I can sell the shares anytime if I need cash, the interest offered by the bond is not very attractive because I have to part the money for 5 years for 5.1% interest. But because it is a very low risk bond issued by the six leading banks, I decided to buy the bond.
Recently, I discovered from the newspaper that the bond which I bought is actually not issued by the six leading banks and will suffer a substantial loss due to Lehman brothers go bankrupt. I further discovered that it is not a bond and instead, it is a very complex product which even the sales people from the Financial institutions are unable to explain clearly. Until today I still do not kwon who is the recipient of the ‘bond’ and how is the Lehman brothers related to the bond ?
The key to this issue is that, how can the information provided from the sales brochures and newspaper advertisements, distributed by the local Financial institutions, are so misleading that it misled hundreds and thousands of ordinary people into believing that the product they bought is a bond and that it is issued by the six leading banks ? Will the authorities go after those parties who are responsible for the misleading sales brochures and newspaper advertisements ?
REPLY
I agree with your views. The Petition signed by 983 investors ask the authorities to investigate any wrong doing, including misleading advertisements.
I bought Minibond Series 5 & 6 through one of the local Financial Institutions with the understanding (from the sales brochure and newspaper advertisements) that the bond is issued by six leading banks namely, DBS, Citibank, Merrill lynch. Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and Standard Chartered bank. The bond pays 5.1% interest per year for a 5-year tenure.
I understand that the principal amount is not guaranteed but the risk is very low, as the six leading banks are very strong and sound. And if one of the banks go bankrupt, the maximum loss will only 1/6 (16.7%) of the principal amount. I will suffer a substantial loss of my principal amount only when all the six leading banks go bankrupt.
Comparing with the OCBC 4.2% and 4.5% preference shares available from the stock market, which I can sell the shares anytime if I need cash, the interest offered by the bond is not very attractive because I have to part the money for 5 years for 5.1% interest. But because it is a very low risk bond issued by the six leading banks, I decided to buy the bond.
Recently, I discovered from the newspaper that the bond which I bought is actually not issued by the six leading banks and will suffer a substantial loss due to Lehman brothers go bankrupt. I further discovered that it is not a bond and instead, it is a very complex product which even the sales people from the Financial institutions are unable to explain clearly. Until today I still do not kwon who is the recipient of the ‘bond’ and how is the Lehman brothers related to the bond ?
The key to this issue is that, how can the information provided from the sales brochures and newspaper advertisements, distributed by the local Financial institutions, are so misleading that it misled hundreds and thousands of ordinary people into believing that the product they bought is a bond and that it is issued by the six leading banks ? Will the authorities go after those parties who are responsible for the misleading sales brochures and newspaper advertisements ?
REPLY
I agree with your views. The Petition signed by 983 investors ask the authorities to investigate any wrong doing, including misleading advertisements.
Hong Kong: Minibond investors demand full refund
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Lehman Brothers minibond holders are demanding a full refund of their money following the government's proposal that banks buy back the failed US investment bank's minibonds from investors.
The Hong Kong government on Monday proposed that 19 distributor banks and brokerage firms buy back minibonds from clients at market value to shorten the painful process of individuals recovering their money and limit reputational damage to banks.
About 50 investors attended a Democratic Party meeting yesterday to discuss the proposal.
Some minibond holders said they would not be happy if they can only get back 60 to 70 percent of their investment and insisted on a 100 percent refund. They also blamed the government for lacking supervision of investment products.
The investors said they will continue to pursue legal action on the marketing practices of the banks promoting Lehman minibonds.
Undersecretary of Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau Julia Leung Fung-yee reiterated yesterday that banks "are not exempted from the investigation on marketing practices even if they are willing to buy back."
The government expects distributors to look at the proposal and assess its potential risks before deciding within a week on whether to accept.
Investors will separately meet Bank of China (Hong Kong) (2388) representatives and lawmakers at the Legislative Council today.
Lehman Brothers minibond holders are demanding a full refund of their money following the government's proposal that banks buy back the failed US investment bank's minibonds from investors.
The Hong Kong government on Monday proposed that 19 distributor banks and brokerage firms buy back minibonds from clients at market value to shorten the painful process of individuals recovering their money and limit reputational damage to banks.
About 50 investors attended a Democratic Party meeting yesterday to discuss the proposal.
Some minibond holders said they would not be happy if they can only get back 60 to 70 percent of their investment and insisted on a 100 percent refund. They also blamed the government for lacking supervision of investment products.
The investors said they will continue to pursue legal action on the marketing practices of the banks promoting Lehman minibonds.
Undersecretary of Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau Julia Leung Fung-yee reiterated yesterday that banks "are not exempted from the investigation on marketing practices even if they are willing to buy back."
The government expects distributors to look at the proposal and assess its potential risks before deciding within a week on whether to accept.
Investors will separately meet Bank of China (Hong Kong) (2388) representatives and lawmakers at the Legislative Council today.
Restrict the issue of credit cards
Hello Mr Tan,
Someone said that credit card facilities to consumers need to be tightened up, to prevent situations where a person gets multiple credit lines from many banks. Do you have any ideas on how this can be done?
Journalist
MY REPLY
It is important to educate consumers to avoid borrowing on credit cards. The interest charge on late payments could be as high as 2% per month. This works out to 24% a high. It is extremely high.
Many consumers borrow excessively on credit cards and incur large debts with high interest costs. They are not able to cope with the debts, and have to declare bankrupcy.The number of these cases have been increasing in alarming proportions - according to insiders who are involved in collection of credit card debts.
I suggest that MAS should require all banks to provide data into a central database managed by MAS on the credit cards taken by individual persons. Each person should be limited to a maximum of two credit cards. The total credit limit on these cards should be limited to two months of salary.
Banks should not be allowed to issue credit cards, if an individual already has two cards. Exceptions can be made for high net worth individuals who need more than two credit cards.
Someone said that credit card facilities to consumers need to be tightened up, to prevent situations where a person gets multiple credit lines from many banks. Do you have any ideas on how this can be done?
Journalist
MY REPLY
It is important to educate consumers to avoid borrowing on credit cards. The interest charge on late payments could be as high as 2% per month. This works out to 24% a high. It is extremely high.
Many consumers borrow excessively on credit cards and incur large debts with high interest costs. They are not able to cope with the debts, and have to declare bankrupcy.The number of these cases have been increasing in alarming proportions - according to insiders who are involved in collection of credit card debts.
I suggest that MAS should require all banks to provide data into a central database managed by MAS on the credit cards taken by individual persons. Each person should be limited to a maximum of two credit cards. The total credit limit on these cards should be limited to two months of salary.
Banks should not be allowed to issue credit cards, if an individual already has two cards. Exceptions can be made for high net worth individuals who need more than two credit cards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)